National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement
University at Albany, School of Education, B-9
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222http://cela.albany.edu/
518-442-5026

The Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA) is a
national research and development center located at the University
at Albany, State University of New York, in collaboration with
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Center, established
in 1987, initially focused on the teaching and learning of literature.
In March 1996, the Center expanded its focus to include the
teaching and learning of English, both as a subject in its own
right and as it is learned in other content areas. CELA's work
is sponsored by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(OERI), U.S. Department of Education, as part of the National
Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment.

A Response-Based Approach to Reading Literature is based on
research conducted at the National Research Center on Literature
Teaching and Learning, supported under the Research and Development
Centers Program (Grant number R117G10015). Distribution is supported
in part under award number R305A960005 as administered by OERI.
However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions
or policies of the Department of Education, OERI, or the Institute
on Student Achievement. All Center reports are peer reviewed
before publication.

In this Research Report, I will discuss my work on response-based
instruction, the strategies teachers call upon to orchestrate
such classroom experiences, and ways in which it supports the
development of students' thinking. This work is part of a larger
program of research into the teaching and learning of literature
I began some years ago. During the past few years, an increasing
number of researchers and theorists have been focusing on related
issues relevant to language arts readers about the processes
involved in understanding literature from a reader-based perspective
(e.g., Benton,1992, Corcoran, 1992, Eeds & Wells, 1989,
Encisco, 1992, Rosenblatt, 1993), as well as ways to support
students' learning in the elementary and middle grades (e.g.,
Andrasik 1990, Cianciolo & Quirk 1992; Close 1990, 1992;
Goodman & Wilde 1992; Many & Wiseman 1992; McMahon 1992;
Nystrand, Gamoran, & Heck 1993; Zancanella 1992, Zarillo
& Cox 1992). Still others have been focusing on literature-based
and whole language instruction at the primary level (e.g., Jipson
& Paley 1992; Mills, O'Keefe, & Stephens 1992; Morrow
1992; Roser in press; Uhry & Shephard 1993; Villaume &
Worden 1993; Walmsley & Adams 1993; Yatvin 1992).

On the heels of the reform we have all witnessed in writing
education has followed a widespread rethinking of literature
in the English language arts, initiated as often as not by teachers
who have wanted to bring their literature instructional practices
in line with their student-focused approaches to writing. During
this time, I have become increasingly aware that as teachers
experiment with the many related types of response-centered
approaches (including whole language and literature-based instruction),
many are uncertain about the place of instruction in these paradigms
and their role in it. On the one hand they are attracted to
the notions underlying a pedagogy of student thoughtfulness
because they think it provides students with ownership for their
own learning, motivates and engages them in making sense, and
provides a context for them to try out, negotiate, and refine
their ideas in interaction with others. On the other hand, they
are uncertain how to carry through such lessons.

Often I am asked, "Does anything go, and if not, how do I know
what to do? Once I get an initial response, what do I do with
it?" I consider these concerns valid, even predictable. The
old teaching routines almost all of us learned in graduate coursework
and saw modeled in curriculum guides, instructional materials,
and assessment instruments don't apply when response-based instruction
is the goal. Yet the field has not yet provided adequate guidelines
or strategies to allow teachers to build "new bones," internalized
routines and options to take the place of plot summaries and
leading questions guiding students toward predetermined interpretations  new
bones that can guide their moment-to-moment decision-making
as they plan for and interact with their students.

For the past few years, through my work at the National Research
Center on Literature Teaching and Learning (funded by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement), I have been working toward a reader-based theory
for the teaching of literature  one that can help us understand
what it means to make sense of literature from a reader's point
of view, and what that means for refocusing our instructional
goals and practices (see Langer, 1990a,b; 1991, 1992a,b; 1993;
Roberts & Langer 1991). One part of this work helps explain
the process of literary understanding while the other addresses
ways in which such understanding can be most effectively taught.
I will discuss each in turn.